300winmag

It looks like the bill passed with the carve outs for state government buildings, hospitals, libraries, police departments. I wonder if the airports will be able to carve themselves out and still make carry illegal before TSA screening by posting, since airports like Memphis have their own airport police. The bill may benefit people in Memphis and Nashville because the city governments here post a lot of the city owned buildings. It will hurt people in small towns that do not post and have one building for court and other city offices.

Yeah I have thought for a while that this bill was sponsored by the NRA because it includes lawsuit money that the organization can receive if a town or county violates the pre emption law. That is probably why a simple law fix could not be done by just removing the criminal offense of the no gun signs because the NRA would not have the potential to make money from it. It looks like there will be a floor vote in the House tomorrow. Folks in small towns where all county/city business is done at the court house are about to get hurt carry wise by this bill unless it is amended on the House floor. Carry inside the WHOLE court house is going to be made a felony offense, even with a permit. You might want to bring this up with your state senators and state representatives. I think the NRA does decent work at the national level but they sure don't help this state out much at all.

The zoo is in Overton Park and is a rec facility so I've assumed for the past couple of years that carry there is legal, whether or not there are state compliant 'no gun' signs. Parks can still post no gun signs, they just do not apply to people with handgun carry permits.

Absolutely this bill is a step backwards for a lot of people because it makes carry inside a whole courthouse building a FELONY VS right now the courtroom during court. I'm still curious what gun organization helped write this silly bill because it is three pages of garbage that could have been much better accomplished with a two sentence revision of the no gun sign law changing the violation from a misdemeanor to a deny entry/removal from property.

It looks like this bill has moved past the House finance committee and will probably go to the full House for a floor vote. It still needs to be heard by the Senate finance committee. The bill was amended in the house finance committee to add more locations that this bill will not apply to and 'no gun' signs can still result in a criminal violation. Those locations now are: 1. court houses and not just the court room. 2. Local government hospitals and mental health facilities. 3. Any local government building that contains a police agency. From reading, not sure if this includes airports. 4. local government libraries. 5. facilities that administer Head Start. 6. All state owned facilities that do not fall under the rec property. Too bad that after all this time the politicians had to draft a crummy bill that just adds more gray to where we can't legally carry instead of just modifying the 'no gun' sign law and making it just allow property owners to remove/trespass.

That is excellent that this bill totally removes suppressors from the criminal code. That should treat suppressors no different than any other object instead of as a firearm under state law.

I was looking today and it appears that these clowns have added another carve out to this bill. The new carve out looks like places prohibited by federal law and also places that receive federal funds contingent on banning guns. Now how in the world am I going to know that a property receives federal funds and is supposed to ban guns in order to receive federal funding? Is it really that difficult for these clowns to just add a couple of sentences to the law that states something like this: "Carrying of a concealed firearm in a location specified in subdivisions (1) to (17) of subsection 1 of this section by any individual who holds a concealed carry permit issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121, or a concealed carry endorsement issued prior to August 28, 2013, shall not be a criminal act but may subject the person to denial to the premises or removal from the premises." Missouri You could do that with the schools, colleges, and places with no guns signs and then everyone can have their no gun policies but if you are concealing your handgun and being quiet about it you won't be breaking the law. If your gun is seen by someone and you are breaking the property's policy, then you can be asked to leave. That would be so much easier than the motions these guys are going through in Nashville but would benefit us quite a bit. It's a really simple concept that I am very surprised has not been proposed VS a bill with lawsuits, metal detectors, and several carve outs to have to remember. I'm still guessing the NRA played a big part in writing this crummy bill because it allows for gun rights orgs to win lawsuit money from counties and cities.

This state is not very 2nd amendment friendly. You have to remember that pure possession of a firearm for self defense is assumed to be illegal unless you fall under a set of exceptions. Tennessee is not like most states where the concealing of a weapon is illegal but having it in the open is legal. I've been under the impression that the state politicians want to appear 2nd amendment friendly but truly do not trust people, even people who buy the state's permits. It's quite obvious when the state government makes it illegal to carry with the state's permit in a bunch of state owned buildings by having a criminal offense behind the goofy 'no gun' signs.

Probably 99.9% of people with handgun carry permits can pass a background check anytime. The process works in a good bit of states when people with carry permits buy at an FFL and don't have background checks run. Why would that not work in Tennessee? And then also why should we all be hassled with paying for TICS because the courts didn't do their job of taking permits fast enough of the 0.01% that get revoked. There is lag time in anything with the legal system and someone without a permit could pass a background check but lie on the dealer paperwork before info is submitted to NICS. Should 99% of people be inconvenienced by a month long waiting period to take that into account?

After paying for a handgun carry permit, we should not have to pay again for TICS even at an FFL. Quite a few states just use the FBI NICS and do not charge for it. Also quite a few states' handgun carry permits are substitutes for FBI NICS. You are never called in if you have a Mississippi concealed pistol license when you buy a gun from an FFL in MS. If you have a handgun carry permit, you should be good to buy a gun without a background check. The state does have a process for people who become felons to surrender their permits.

If a DA or Assistant DA is safe enough to carry in a certain location (say a school) that we are prohibited from carrying with a permit, then we should be able to carry in that location also. Maybe some DA or assistant DA isn't able to get a police commission that they think they need or maybe they realize this is their easier ticket to 24/7 carry rights that are better than a handgun carry permit?

Yeah if you let people call into TICS without a FFL and allow people with carry permits use those as substitutes, I would not have near the problem as I do with most background check bills. Most background check bills are modeled after California where everyone, including people with carry permits, must run everything through an FFL. California also has handgun and long gun registration. That is nothing more than universal gun registration in order to make some poor attempt at knowing who has guns and what they have.

The state house and state senate are moving a bill through the legislature that would give district attorneys and their assistants unlimited carry (LEO) rights while working and away from work. It has already passed the state senate with no opposition and moving through the state house. Is this bill even necessary? I thought the DA's are still able to get police commissions from their police departments in order to carry.

The big problem with most of these 'universal background' check bills is they are really just universal gun registration bills because all sales must go through an FFL, plus adding 30-40 dollars to cost of selling your own gun. I would have less of a problem with a background check if it was just a background check and did not involve running the gun through an FFL, say if you could just show someone you have a handgun carry permit or like NC does a purchase permit. Pro gun people need to ask the anti gun folks why the handgun carry permits and purchase permits are not sufficient for a background check and you'll see that the anti gun folks basically want a backdoor path to gun registration.

It looks like public utility districts and human resource agencies have been added to the growing list of carve outs to this bill. These clowns are going to add so many carve outs that they are just wasting time even passing this bill. So now you have locally govt owned medical facilities, police stations, airports (i'm assuming because they all have local police in them..need someone to verify), public libraries, and all state government owned properties in addition to the public utilities and HR agencies. Just about all the states around us are getting or have college carry and we are can't even carry legally at some libraries. What a joke.

A committee killing a bill helps most of the politicians avoid making a recorded vote on something they would rather not vote on. Of course on the practical side, it's not like there is time for floor votes on every bill.

Yeah that will help with Georgia Tech because it is in the middle of Atlanta and probably not in the best area of town.

Tennessee is oddly not that carry friendly compared to the surrounding states. The permits until recently had quite a few restrictions on them that made legal carry difficult. You had to have a permit just to have a handgun loaded in your car. You couldn't even have a long gun loaded in the vehicle even with a permit. The permits are also initially somewhat expensive with the training class and fees. You'd think the state would trust people that are forced to take a class, shoot on a range, and get fingerprinted, but the state obviously doesn't when you can't even carry legally where the permits are issued. Yeah I guess it is not New Jersey where you probably won't get a permit unless you are politically connected but it sure isn't like a lot of places.

Considering how pro sports and the sports media is fairly anti gun, that does not surprise me. Of course I guess the college carry situation is still better than what we have here considering that we flat out can't carry at any college unless we are faculty or staff.

The Georgia legislature recently passed a bill to legalize college carry. The governor now can veto or let the bill become law. North Carolina now will be the only state bordering Tennessee that has not legalized college carry for people with a license.

Exactly. The problem could be quietly fixed with a two sentence change in the law from a criminal penalty to a denial of entry as a consequence for violating the signs. No need for involving lawsuits against the local governments and no need for property owners to feel like they have no ability in asking people with guns to leave. You would then have folks just quietly concealing and going about their business legally and those that can't conceal their guns would be asked to leave if seen. Instead we have a three to four page bill that awards gun organizations lawsuit money, may increase properties using metal detectors, and still leaves quite a few properties illegal to carry at. Something that should be so simple to fix sure has turned into a complicated mess.

You would think an NRA rep would at least show up to speak at the committee meetings when I'm guessing they played a part in writing this bill, since it has lawsuit money going basically to the NRA. I'll give the Moms Against Guns credit, they do show up to the meetings and advocate for their cause. Tough to justify supporting the NRA when they don't show up to the meetings and then support these types of crummy bills as pro gun.

Yep, this bill amendment basically makes a whole courthouse illegal to carry in under the courtroom weapons law. It is in the last part of the state senate amendment. You could get a felony charge, not the misdemeanor sign violation. That would affect a lot of less populated places where everything is in one county or city owned building. I just think it is funny and pathetic that the politicians in these committee meetings claim they have been working on this bill since last summer. It literally takes these guys months on end to even come up with this bill that doesn't help much and in one area makes worse. I mean who thought that library buildings should still be able to post? What makes a library any different than any other locally owned building? Of course in the senate amendment they purposefully made this bill just apply to city and county owned properties and not state owned properties along with several other carve outs. The bill just went through a house committee today. An amendment was added and I'm guessing that it mirrors the senate amendment.

I think it is important to note that the feds already basically mandate other laws that should be just decided by the states. All the states and most of the US territories have the drinking age set at 21. All the states now have at most a DWI limit of 0.08 instead of what used to be in a lot of places BAC of 0.10 . Aren't the feds trying to force Tennessee to outlaw passengers drinking in cars by withholding road funding? A lot of states used to not allow off duty police from out of state carry in their states. I sure can't carry in New York on my TN handgun carry permit but a TN LEO is legal there. To me you can't have a federal law allowing one group to carry but not another group. I'm not saying LEOSA is a bad law but I think we all should be legal carrying in any state.

As far as guns, the genie was let out of the bottle with the LEOSA ten years ago allowing local and state level police to carry off duty across the country without the need of a license or state law allowing them to carry outside their respective states. If nationwide carry with a license is unconstitutional then LEOSA would be just as unconstitutional. I personally think that as long as LEOSA is on the books then we should have national concealed carry. If LEOSA didn't exist I might think differently.